Are we going the wrong way with small Satellites

Are we going the wrong way with small Satellites?

The Buzz word at the moment in the space industry seems to be cube Sats or micro satellites and on the face of it they do have some good advantages. They are cheap to design and make, do not cost a lot to launch as they can piggyback on other larger satellites launch vehicles. on the whole good, quick and easy payloads to get into space to do a little bit of science.

The disadvantages however are a little longer term, because they are so small and limited in life span and maneuvering thrust, if any, they can remain in orbit for decades after they are they have become redundant or failed to function adding to our already cluttered orbital space.

So for all the little satellites we launch to do a little bit of science we are generating a massive problem for ourselves down the road. We are only now beginning to visualize solutions for space junk all the while continuing to add to it at an alarming rate.

So are micro satellites a good idea?

What if we were to go bigger not smaller? how about we totally rework the way the satellite industry operates and move beyond the bootstrap model we have been using since sputnik. 

If we break it down satellites are made up of;

1. The Main Bus: the structure of the satellite.
2. Fuel Tanks
3. ACS (Attitude Control Systems)
4. Communication systems

And Finally

1. Payload

From a business perspective only the payload is of any importance, it is the revenue generator, the rest is just an engineering necessity. The more Payload that can be launched the more revenue that can be generated as the payload can do more functions. However, this is determined by the amount of fuel, structure and control systems required to keep a satellite in orbit for a sizable amount of time.

So what if we break a satellite down into components, the revenue generating payload and the operational platform. This opens up a whole new methodology for satellite business.

Assuming we can have a standardized orbital platform that a payload can be attached too but not launched together.

Having the entire payload mass of a launch vehicle to play with opens up a lot of possibilities but also having a standardized orbiting platform also has huge benefits. The Platform can now be serviceable, refillable and there is nothing to say more than one payload can be fitted after all it will be in an orbit that other payloads could make use of.  As the payloads are detachable they can be removed and returned to earth for recycling and immediately we have reduced the amount of junk we would be leaving floating around our planet.

This is all achievable and in my opinion makes logical sense, now my question is why is it not being done?